I hope you can get some answers, Ton. Was going to ask you if you knew a way to get to their data, but came to this post.

The numbers on http://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus are worrying – twice as many deaths as Germany given eight times fewer cases. I guess it goes down to testing, which is now only done for 70+, risk groups and severe symptoms. But if they are not testing, they don’t have the data on how the virus is spreading and all the plans about herd immunity is a big gamble. And lack of help in all those cases that could be prevented from getting severe symptoms and overloading hospitals.

They have two means of testing. The numbers reported daily, which is the top of the pyramid of cases, and the NIVEL netwerk which takes samples from a network of first line care facilities (GPs) across the country, to provide a statistical measure of the base of the pyramid and its geographic spread.

I’d like to see a reference for this information. Given how the testing is done now (70+, risk groups and severe symptoms) I wonder what sorts of models are they using to interpret the data – extrapolating from the number of deaths and severe symptoms the infection rate in the population?

From what I know “on the ground” – our family and two people who were in contact with known coronavirus case were not tested despite all the symptoms. I am even not sure that our cases are reported as “probably coronavirus” somewhere.

And there is another point of that – all the people with mild cases are essentially denied testing because there are not enough tests, and contact with a healthcare specialist because they might be infectious. There is nobody that will listen to the lungs of my kids unless they are short of breath or show other severe signs. I had a pneumonia case with one of the kids before to know that it does not always fit those protocol questions that you have to answer by phone.

Lack of tests and preparedness before the crisis are given. My main question is whether Dutch health authorities and decision-makers are still relying on the data, models and policies that have shown to lead to the crisis (=not knowing about actual infections in the population, downplaying the risks, not preparing the infrastructure based on the examples from China, Italy or WHO recommendations).

“all the plans about herd immunity is a big gamble” Lilia, don’t assume ‘herd immunity’ means the tactics you think it means. As RIVM stated in parliament it’s not the prime objective of the response, but a needed side effect. The measures taken are called lock-down in various other countries. It’s just the that UK gov had totally different take on it, and that interpretation of the term was out there for us all to read first.

RIVM’s issue isn’t knowledge, data, or decisiveness, it’s communication and consistent transparency I feel. The interviews with its director in the past days have provided more key information (apart from core numbers) than the daily bulletins on their site (which has the core numbers only).

Ton, I have never assumed “herd immunity” as letting coronavirus run wild. I read enough news to see where they are heading. I am questioning their ability to made decisions about the effects of the measures and needed follow-up without having the data about the actual spead of the virus due to the lack of testing. The numbers of cases that are publicly reported every day do not represent the actual picture, they are misleading and create a false sense of safety.

“The numbers of cases that are publicly reported every day do not represent the actual picture” There is not a single country in the world where the publicly reported data is the actual picture. By definition. Note that the RIVM never claims that their numbers are the complete picture either, on the contrary. The reported numbers provide an actual picture of what is measured only. The context of which differs per country (in NL case they chose what can be usefully measured given the number of tests available, which by the looks of it means testing to keep hospitals as controlled an environment as possible, to protect staff from falling ill so they can keep working). To a certain level it makes sense: if we all stay home, it doesn’t add any knowledge at all to test for Corona if you or me develop symptoms, as long as you stay home and care isn’t yet needed. We’re already isolated at home anyway, and there is no active cure, there’s only a need for confirmation when hospitalisation comes into the picture then. Until that point self-reporting provides as much information without reducing the limited number of tests available. Testing must yield useful information in the sense that it provides agency in decisions, if it doesn’t it is noise not data. Testing you or me while we’re at home is such noise in the current context it seems.

Here in NL it would be of interest to see more of that current context than the RIVM is currently communicating, even though they could and I think they should. They also have a history of such meagre communication. Hence my conclusion it isn’t a lack of data per se (if you know how your data is insufficient then you are in a position to use that to create better insight.), but the lack of communication (publishing all available data, its context, the models used to work up from the collected data to an overall assessment of transmission speed and transmission hotspots etc etc).

“false sense of safety”… I think the current communication from government along the lines of ‘this is the biggest societal challenge one could face in peace time”, “stay at home, behave to others like you’re already infected”, “this will take a year” etc etc. leave little room for a false sense of safety, no?

To respond on your own website, enter the URL of your response which should contain a link to this post's permalink URL. Your response will then appear (possibly after moderation) on this page. Want to update or remove your response? Update or delete your post and re-enter your post's URL again. (Learn More)

Are you a maker, a creator of technology? Sign the TechPledge! Commit to human centered tech and continuous reflection on the impact of your work.

I helped shape the TechPledge, and signed on September 10th 2019. Hold me to account.

Subscribe to my blog

About

Blog Interdependent Thoughts maintained since 2002 by Ton Zijlstra. European citizen in a networked world. Based in the Netherlands, living in Europe, working globally. There are no Others. There is just me and many of you.

I write about how our digital and networked world changes how we work, learn, decide and organize. I explore the tools and strategies that help us navigate the networked world.
I am passionate about increasing people's ability to act (knowledge), and their ability to change (learning). Key-words: open data, open government, fablabs, making, complexity, networked agency, networked learning, ethics by design.